A feasibility trial of a cognitive-behavioural symptom management program for chronic pelvic pain for men with refractory chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our objective was to determine the feasibility of acognitive behavioural symptom management program for the acuteimprovement of psychosocial risk factors of diminished quality oflife (QoL) in men suffering from chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvicpain syndrome (CP/CPPS).Materials and Methods: We assessed CP/CPPS symptoms andimpact (i.e., chronic prostatitis symptom index [CPSI] pain, urinary,QoL domains), psychosocial risk factors were assessed at baselineand weekly for 8 weeks. We included the following psychosocialrisk factors: catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS),mood (Center for Epidemiological Studies in Depression Scale,CES-D), social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived SocialSupport, MSPSS) and general pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire).Patient sessions dispute and replace pessimistic thinking withhealth-focused thinking and behaviour.Results: Eleven men completed the psychosocial management program(mean age = 51.3, standard deviaton [SD] = 12.49). MeanCPSI baseline total score was 25.2 (SD = 10.21). Repeated measuresANOVAs showed the program was associated with significantlinear reductions for pain (p = 0.051), disability (p= 0.020)and catastrophizing (p = 0.005), but no changes in depressivesymptoms or social support. The CPSI baseline scores comparedto follow-up scores (n = 8) were significantly reduced (p = 0.007),with CPSI pain (p = 0.015) and QoL impact (p = 0.013) reduced,but not for urinary scores. Correlations between change scores atthe baseline and at 8 weeks for CPSI and psychosocial risk factorsindicated that reductions in catastrophizing were most stronglyassociated with score reductions for the CPSI; these reductions,however, were not significant.Conclusions: The psychosocial management program targets andsignificantly reduces several empirically supported psychosocialrisk factors associated with poorer CP/CPPS outcomes. Psychosocialmanagement for CP/CPPS is feasible, but requires a randomizedcontrolled trial with longitudinal follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".